In article <Pine.3.89.9410240945.A26278-0100000 at isnet.is.wfu.edu>,
bmorrell at ISNET.IS.WFU.EDU ("Robert Morrell Jr.") writes:
<snip. Robert Morrell asks what is the point?>
My lab claims that they used modified EMB, and that that should have
picked up the E Cloacae. Iit has been done several times, in fact CDC,
CDC with KV, Columbia, and EMB have been used. The point may be hard to
understand if you have not read the prostatitis literature. If the E
Cloacae can be grown from the semen it would be publishable because it
would confirm that lack of sensitivity for current (although 25 years old)
techniques for culturing prostatic pathogens. Namely, the Meares and
Stamey 4 glass test. Since rods can be seen on microscopy of the semen,
even phogocytized, I feel an effort should be made to culture them in
light of the patient's illness. It has been postulated that any organisms
coming from the prostate are "fastidious" in the sense that they are
exposed to a harsh environment with spermidine, spermicin, and zinc as
natural antibiotics. There are also two schools of thought in infectious
disease and urology. One believes that non-bacterial prostatitis exists,
and the other believes that it does not, but that technical problems with
culturing organisms exist when dealing with prostatic fluid and urethral
contamination. Neither idea has been proven and thus the debate rages on.
(This patient does have classical bacterial prostatits by the Meares and
Stamey technique by the way, but not for E Cloacae).
Thanks again.
brad
